Continuing my “Toolbox” series, I’m sure the wits, wags, and wiseacres, who follow US Tax Court proceedings without the need of this my blog, have cottoned on to IRS’ routine folds of Section 6662(a) accuracy chops, even when petitioners’ pleadings don’t show anything like a case, and when petitioners don’t even show for trial.

I’m sure a well-oiled counterpart of this useful tool features in every rounder’s toolbox.

Here’s Judge Goeke with another example, Ronnie Mickens & Gloria Jean Mickens, Docket No. 18326-21, filed 2/24/23, an off-the-bencher.

Ronnie & Gloria Jean claim a theft loss to offset their $15K deficiency and accompanying Section 6662(a) chop. IRS folds the chop at the non-trial.

“In their papers, which were filed pre-trial, Petitioners also argue various nontechnical and nonfactual bases to attack Respondent’s determination and this Court’s jurisdiction. They do not address, in any serious way, the adjustments in the Notice of Deficiency, other than to say they were cheated by a contractor. They don’t establish the basis on which such an argument could be sustained as a theft loss. Nor do they seriously attempt to substantiate any of the amounts in dispute in the Notice of Deficiency in any of their Pre-Trial papers.” Transcript, at p. 5.

Long-time readers of this my blog may remember James M. Urtis & Gaetana R. Urtis, who featured in my blogpost “We Wuz Robbed – Part Deux,” 3/5/13. Judge Goeke doesn’t mention Jim & Gaetana, although he wrote the opinion that found Jim & Gaetana did suffer theft loss when their contractor took their money. But Jim & Gaetana put in a case.

Ronnie & Gloria Jean didn’t.

“Petitioners made no attempt to make such an argument in their Pre-Trial papers and failed to appear orproduce any evidence prior to trial. Obviously, Petitioners did not intend to pursue a technical argument in this Court, but rather, argue without any basis that the Court lacks jurisdiction.

“Given Petitioners’ statement to Respondent’s counsel that they would not appear and the fact that they did not attempt to be here when their case was called for trial, we determine that their case should be dismissed for failure to properly prosecute and we sustain Respondent’s deficiency in income tax, although Petitioners prevail relative to the addition to tax pursuant to Respondent’s concession.” Transcript, at p. 6.

Notwithstanding petitioners’ no show, they still dodge the chop.